They will not support a bill that has the potential to censor lawful activity or inhibit innovation:

To minimize this risk, new legislation must be narrowly targeted only at sites beyond the reach of current U.S. law, cover activity clearly prohibited under existing U.S. laws, and be effectively tailored, with strong due process and focused on criminal activity. Any provision covering Internet intermediaries such as online advertising networks, payment processors, or search engines must be transparent and designed to prevent overly broad private rights of action that could encourage unjustified litigation that could discourage startup businesses and innovative firms from growing.

They flat out reject anything that involves DNS blocking:

We must avoid creating new cybersecurity risks or disrupting the underlying architecture of the Internet. Proposed laws must not tamper with the technical architecture of the Internet through manipulation of the Domain Name System (DNS), a foundation of Internet security. Our analysis of the DNS filtering provisions in some proposed legislation suggests that they pose a real risk to cybersecurity and yet leave contraband goods and services accessible online. We must avoid legislation that drives users to dangerous, unreliable DNS servers and puts next-generation security policies, such as the deployment of DNSSEC, at risk.

They do still say that new legislation is needed, but they want something where every stakeholder is actually involved:

So, rather than just look at how legislation can be stopped, ask yourself: Where do we go from here? Don’t limit your opinion to what’s the wrong thing to do, ask yourself what’s right. Already, many of members of Congress are asking for public input around the issue. We are paying close attention to those opportunities, as well as to public input to the Administration. The organizer of this petition and a random sample of the signers will be invited to a conference call to discuss this issue further with Administration officials and soon after that, we will host an online event to get more input and answer your questions. Details on that will follow in the coming days.

Washington needs to hear your best ideas about how to clamp down on rogue websites and other criminals who make money off the creative efforts of American artists and rights holders. We should all be committed to working with all interested constituencies to develop new legal tools to protect global intellectual property rights without jeopardizing the openness of the Internet. Our hope is that you will bring enthusiasm and know-how to this important challenge.

Moving forward, we will continue to work with Congress on a bipartisan basis on legislation that provides new tools needed in the global fight against piracy and counterfeiting, while vigorously defending an open Internet based on the values of free expression, privacy, security and innovation. Again, thank you for taking the time to participate in this important process. We hope you’ll continue to be part of it.

Make no mistake about this: this is the White House asking for a hard reset of SOPA/PIPA and saying start again from scratch. This is an astounding turn of events, and a much stronger statement from the White House than anyone honestly expected. This is almost entirely because of the outcry that came out of the internet over the last few months. Without that, it is unlikely that the White House ever would have come out with such a strong position that questions the key provisions of these bills.

It will be important to continue to be engaged and to make sure that what happens next really is reasonable. Let's hope that Congress actually recognizes the importance of what the White House is saying, and that any future process really is open. Congress has a way of ignoring things like this, and until Harry Reid agrees to put PIPA on the shelf and take part in this hard reset, people need to keep the pressure on the Senate. But, in the short term, this is a rather historic moment, in that it is a case where a loud public outcry really has had a major impact on this process. When the Senate introduced PIPA early last year, it was seen as almost assured that it would pass in something close to its initial form. Now that seems impossible.

Re: Re: Repeal the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act

There'd have to be some pretty strong legal protections for creators to prevent the de facto sale of patents and copyrights though. I'd bet my life's savings present and future that without some stiff penalties for being found to have sold copyrights that a contract culture will quickly spring up to effectively allow what the law does not. Sort of like how loans work in countries that don't allow interest. There's still interest charged on loans they just call it something else and hide what it actually is behind walls of legal verbiage. It's probable that no amount of legal wrangling would prevent the sale or transfer of copyrights sadly but if it could it would be a great step forward.

Re: Repeal the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act

And reduce copyright to what the Framers thought was fair - 14 year terms with registration, conspicuous marking, one 14 year renewal after the first 14 year term, and escrow of the work (and source in the case of software) with the Library of Congress.

Re: Repeal the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act

It does not seem fine to me.

Twenty years with additional extensions granted if the rights holder/company files for extensions. This leaves plenty of time for movies/music/etc to make money, leaves the creators/rights holders the option to extend, and if they don't renew then that takes care of the orphaned works problem.

Re: Re: Re: Repeal the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act

Re: Re: Re: Repeal the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act

"People live almost twice as long now though."

Who cares. Since when is copy protection lengths supposed to be based on how long people live and why?

It's not supposed to be based on how long people live, it's supposed to be based on what optimally promotes the progress of the sciences and useful arts, what optimally expands the public domain, and what optimizes social welfare. No one is entitled to a monopoly privilege, not even for one minute.

I say we shorten copy protection lengths to seven years. The overwhelming majority of revenue from most works is made by then, far sooner even. If you can't make your revenue by then then tough.

and any discontinued works automatically enter the public domain. There is no good reason for discontinued works not to enter the public domain.

What a twit you are. It's precisely this attitude of entitlement that has created this horrible mess which is copyright.

Understand: You only have any copyright as long as we let you have it. You are not special because you create. Everyone creates. Everyone. You just think you should get paid for it. That's fine, but don't forget where copyright power comes from. From people like him and people like me.

And why would anyone ever care what you think? You don't create or innovate.

As far as anyone here can tell, you don't create or innovate any more than he does.

And he is absolutely right about copyright's purpose, by the way:

The enactment of copyright legislation by Congress under the terms of the Constitution is not based upon any natural right that the author has in his writings [...] Not primarily for the benefit of the author, but primarily for the benefit of the public, such rights are given. Not that any particular class of citizens, however worthy, may benefit, but because the policy is believed to be for the benefit of the great body of people, in that it will stimulate writing and invention, to give some bonus to authors and inventors.
-60th Congress, 2nd Session, Report 1108

So, obviously, you don't know the first thing about copyright or how long it should last.

I love how you people so blatantly drag things out of your own ass and pretend they're facts. It's so much easier than arguing facts or even determining who you're arguing against.

"There is no way someone like you could ever know the first thing about copyright or how long it should last."

So go on, you mental midget, who is "someone like him"? As far as I can tell, he has the same credentials as you, except he's not acting like a childish asshole and at least has the capability of acting like an educated adult. Unlike you.

Basically when people say crap like this what I hear is "I did 5 minutes worth of work and I want to get paid for the next 20 years so I can sit on my fat lazy ass and eat cheetos". I know hundreds, if not thousands, of people who create or innovate - musicians, writers, artists, photographers, software designers, custom made jewelery and clothing, architects - and I can't think of a single one who whines and complains about longer, stricter, more draconian copyright. They are all to busy innovating and creating.

Re: Re: Re: Repeal the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act

"People live almost twice as long now though."

That's a gross misunderstanding of life expectancy numbers. A healthy person in the colonial era lived just as long as a healthy person does today. The "life expectancy at birth" was half of what it is today because of the high rates of infant- and child-mortality, due mostly to diseases we've learned to treat and cure.

By the time most people were old enough to create something subject to copyright, they would have been expected to live to at least 65 or 75.

Mike Masnick and Techdirt

Techdirt and Mike Masnick rock! The fastest, most informative, and most insightful information about SOPA/PIPA can be found on Techdirt. Techdirt is now my go-to place for interesting news. We owe Mike a lot of credit for helping in the efforts to oppose SOPA and PIPA.

This is indeed good news and a success story for Internet advocacy, but the battles are hardly over. The pro-statute forces remain powerful and determined, and the actual rulings being issued by courts today without any statutory changes are very, very troubling. Eric.

Re: Re: Re:

So our of everything the White House said, what the MPAA got was that Obama definitely believes stronger legislation is needed? This is the kind of complete intellectual dishonesty that is making me increasingly anti-copyright.

Re: Re:

Amazingly large? Maybe. But that coming from the same administration that signed the NDAA into law is barely credible at all. I think I'm not alone when I say that Obama can't be trusted (do as I say, not as I do). Not that anything in the US politics that has any chance of getting there is much better...

Re:

Something tells me the shills will come in force now that they've seen what 'the internets' really can do.
It amuses me greatly though that their whole media blackout didn't work, maybe the time of mainstream media really is over.

Re: Re:

You got what you wished for. However this issue is now way out in the light, and if you think the next step is completely blowing off copyright, you couldn't be more wrong.

The tech people payed their lobbyists well and the pirates complained a lot and it got the attention of the White House. Very impressive.

So you knocked out PIPA and SOPA. But the White House also made it very clear that now you have to step up and provide a solution; a seat at the table you've requested:

"the Administration calls on all sides to work together to pass sound legislation this year that provides prosecutors and rights holders new legal tools to combat online piracy originating beyond U.S. borders."

This is a real issue that isn't going away- the terms of which have just been dictated by the head honcho himself.

Re: Re: Re:

Uuh,
Solution : no more release windows, make content available to the customer when the content launches.

Solution : no more regional windows, make content available to the customer when the content launches, wherever the customer lives.

Solution : Make content available WHERE the customer wants it.

tough to hear ? then you wont like the next part.

You come at this whole thing assuming the media industry wont have to give up anything, ever.

When in fact Copyright is a government granted limited time monopoly with the requirement that the work in question enter the public domain after the Copyright ends.
Copyright exists to further culture in general, not to fatten hollywoods wallets.
That we let Copyright get to where it is today is a travesty, but at least people are starting to put their foot down.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Might want to expand upon that.

That's one of the chief reasons that Victoria Espinel should pursue opportunities in the private sector:

Iiuc, Victoria Espinel helped to broker the “six strikes” deal between ISPs and “content” providers. In that agreement, the competitor ISPs combined to fix their price at $35 for consumers to contest any “strike”.

Iow, anytime the “content” providers feel like it, they can get a consumer dinged for $35. And the “competitive” ISPs will agreed on the same $35 charge.

Re: Re: Re:

Those were the terms dictated. It isn't entirely infeasible for the tech industry and the public to send the following response:

No.

Difficult to say, maybe, and hard for a politician's mind to comprehend, but it is a valid response. Especially considering that there are plenty of people who think the existing 'legal tools' are already too much.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

That's almost funny.
Imma go ahead and be nice and give you points for trying.

Thing is, discussing the Copyright term is becoming less and less controversial.
My guess is we're not too far off people running with 'copyright reform' in their program. and with shit like PIPA/SOPA in the jacket of the copyrightmaximalist people imma go ahead and guess that they're gna get a significant share of the votes.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Not changing the length of copyright only empowers "pirates" more and more since it is seem as an unjust law by the people who must comply with it and there is not enforcement possible at the level needed to make happen.

The people doing the piracy first are consumers and second if they don't pay is because they don't want to and there are reasons fueling that, without the social mores to hold them back you got nothing to stop the "thieving" since you are powerless to do it any other way.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Very shortly after piracy became an apparent problem, the 9/11 attacks occurred. For YEARS afterward, federal law enforcement concerned itself with terrorism at the expense of all other crimes.

After the Bush reign ended, the Justice department returned to a balanced law enforcement approach.

Pirates and anti-IP zealots have long made the mistake that technology won some battle, when in reality law enforcement just wasn't prosecuting. That created goofballs like you, who think copyright is over and a new reality now exists.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Are you saying Bush Jr ruled the United States since the introduction of Track-8 tapes?

Nobody ever took copyright seriously except for business that depend on the government to exist, but people don't depend on the government, they were not created by an act of law and they never observed copyrights.

Law enforcement is not even prosecuting right now, where are the new RIAA "educational" campaign?

Oh that is right they abandoned that approach because it wasn't working LoL

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

To remind people, copyright was only for scientific works and learning material any other stuff had zero protections, musicians didn't had protections, movies didn't had protections, designs didn't had protections, computer programs didn't had protections.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Is not up to the Whit House to decide what others should do in their own homes and will never be, the people prepared to be ignore are the ones trying to force their vision on the commons, they will find themselves standing alone.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Starved? For content? Have you been on the internet? If you removed every single instance of content that vaguely violated somebody's copyright, I'd still be able to spend my entire life fairly well entertained.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

The question you should ask him is if he doesn't believe others are entitled to use the hard work of others for free, then why is he not paying royalties to the makers of his home, shoes, car, roads etc.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

If people proved anything is that they are starved for interactivity, they want to interact, modify and release something so others can see and be entertained with them, they don't want to be constrained by the old model.

So in a sense there is demand for ideas, but ideas that others can use, copyright make ideas useless for everybody and for that it must end.

Re: Re: Re:

Make content available in a way that the consumer (remember them?) the end customer can afford can afford or wants. Say the singles the were finally pushed into by Apple at relatively decent price.

In short don't overvalue your product or sell in a ways and forms the market doesn't' want.

The movie trick has already been mentioned though to that I'll add exhibitors need to make their theatres places people want to go. Seeing a movie on TV isn't the same as in a theatre not can it be made the same social event.

In short for the RIAA and MPAA let go of the idea that you control the release chain from end to end and loosen up a bit (or a lot).

Re: Re: Re:

"the Administration calls on all sides to work together to pass sound legislation this year that provides prosecutors and rights holders new legal tools to combat online piracy originating beyond U.S. borders."

Back to forcing your laws on other Countries?

Worry about your own people. I can hardly find all the laws that pertain to me from my own Country, let alone yours and every other one.

Positive development, but...

While this is an excellent development, what struck me about the White House statement is that it's playing by the rules set by SOPA/PIPA proponents. They continue to treat the piracy issue as far more serious than it actually is. As you've previously done on this blog, and Julian Sanchez at CATO does in the following post, http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/how-copyright-industries-con-congress/, there's some serious debunking that has to be brought to light. The reset should not just be for some of the silliness that was being attempted in those bills, but also in the very premise that we should be spending this much energy and resources on something that does not raise to the level of importance of much more serious issues in our country today. The Entertainment Industry is the NOT the end all and be all of the U.S. economy. Their biz models have to change and they need to come to terms with reality. Just as the horse & buggy industry had to come to terms with the automobile and ice producers had to come to terms with the refrigerator makers, so must the entertainment industry come to terms with shifts in their world. Arresting, fining and vilifying citizens is NOT the answer.

Re: Positive development, but...

No, no, no. This is not like "the horse and buggy industry coming to terms with the automobile." This is like the automobile industry having to come to terms with car thieves.

Make no mistake, piracy is a crime, not an innovation. It is theft, plain and simple. Like most property crimes, however, it is market-driven. This means that the entertainment industry does need to rethink its distribution model to make sure that its always much easier and more convenient to buy content than it is to steal content. It also means that there's nothing wrong with a law that punishes individual perpetrators and organized criminal groups to act as an additional deterrant.

The problem with SOPA/PIPA is that it is akin to trying to stop car theft by forcing everyone to keep their cars in their garages at all times. There absolutely should be strong federal punishments for proven content piracy. As for the overseas websites that the more troubling parts of SOPA/PIPA are targeted at, the challenge is to exert pressure on other countries to adopt more uniform content protection. Ideally, the focus should be on making copyright law terms and protections that are internationally agreed upon.

Re: Re: Positive development, but...

Tolerance for America getting involved in the legislative processes of sovereign countries is at an all time low.

The biggest problem i see with all this BS from the media industry is that there is NO attempt to adjust to reality, they want to try to make reality adapt to their buisness model rather than adapt their buisness model to fit reality.

Re: Re: Re: Positive development, but...

I'd agree with that. Like I said, it's a huge failure of the media industry that it is currently easier to steal content than it is to buy it. We are seeing some attempts with the proliferation of tablets and e-readers, which have legally purchasing content built into their basic UX. More should be done.

Sluggishness on the part of producers doesn't mean it should be legal to pirate content, though.

And the issue of overseas piracy is the toughest nut to crack, that's why I said "ideally." International copyright law does already exist though, and most productive nations already agree on it. What it'll ultimately come down to is an economic decision by the various industries on whether or not to distributing content in places with minimal protections is worth it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Positive development, but...

I'm not trolling. There are two legitimate sides to this issue, and it's not going to be solved by impractical idealism or entrenched practice.

You're right, the act of copying something for personal use is not theft. I'd contend that profiting from distributing something you don't own is, though. That's where the real problem is.

When a website profits off of advertising revenue or even monetary donations from end users for providing access to content it does not legally own, that is theft. That website is stealing a wholesale good and reselling it with the expectation of revenue but without intention of ever paying its creator or manufacturer.

Every good is "infinitely copyable." Its just unusually easy for the average person to copy content as opposed to, say, iPhones. The reason we have copyright protection is to protect the incentive to create original content in the first place. Its the same reason we have patents: to make innovation and creation profitable enough that it's attractive for people to invest the time and money necessary to create things.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Positive development, but...

The reason we have copyright is to promote the progress of the useful arts and sciences. Incentive isn't really mentioned, it's a byproduct.

When copyright and patents are used to hinder or stifle the progress of useful arts and sciences, it's time to drop the enforcement angle and start weakening or repealing legislation that has made such hinderance possible.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Positive development, but...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Positive development, but...

For a start, this is a form of logic that suggests because an act by itself may not be considered particularly useful culturally or economically, it is just as worthy of punishment, along with the already addressed assumption (yet again) that copyright infringement is akin or has the same consequences as theft. More importantly it's an attempt to gloss over a number of grey areas where copyright can no doubt inhibit legitimate forms of speech, of which appropriation, reuse and remixing is no less so, particularly when you are actually mindful of the history of each medium, rather than assuming the classic creation in a vacuum theory.

There are plenty of provisions for what is called "fair use" when protected content can be used for free (with attribution) for commentary, academic and even some commercial artistic purposes.

All of them undermined by already existing laws like the DMCA that diminish the ability of individuals to practice those rights, and SOPA/PIPA that go even further.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Positive development, but...

Your statement is basically correct, but to be accurate useful arts refers in the clause to inventions and science to writings. Patents and copyrights are but means (and not necessarily the only ones) by which these prospective, exclusive, time limited rights can be secured.

Prospective is used above in the sense that it is an enunciated power, and not an obligation, of the federal government.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Positive development, but...

Exactly my point.

The act of producing an iPhone requires a huge amount of resources: work, planning, monetary investment, plastic, metal, glass, and so on. Unauthorized copying of the end product is possible (heck, its done), but is made more difficult by the fact that you have to produce a tangible good, so copying isn't a huge problem.

The act of producing content also requires a huge amount of resources: peoples' work, hours of planning, considerable monetary investment, et cetera. Yet, the result exists as intangible information. It is easy to copy with the press of a button.

Copyright exists to allow creators of intangible products to control distribution for their own profit. This is put in place to allow a professional artist class to exist. Copyright is what allows people to continue to spend millions of dollars and thousands of man hours to make your favorite movies and TV shows.

We've had copyright almost as long as recording has existed, but before recording every bit of music or theater you could see had to be performed by the artists themselves. Thus there was a physical barrier to copying.

Patents have been around in one form or another since ancient Greece, so, yeah, we had very little prior.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Positive development, but...

Open source took the guess work out of that, Red Hat, Canonical, Arduino, Blender and many others are making money out of free.

In fact copyright only exists for open source to compel others to share, maybe that is the only good copyright one that take the current copyrights protections and change them 360 degrees.

That model not only allows big players to emerge it guarantees that any segment of the market will be served, it also guarantees local work since the production is in a global scale but anyone anywhere can try and create a market around it, so you can get a local to modify things for you and that local gets paid locally the money don't go elsewhere, just ask any economist how important is to have local economic activity.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Positive development, but...

GC, I think you may be putting a bit too much faith in copyright as a source of income. Does it play a part? Sure. The real reason that millions of dollars and thousands of man hours are put into making movies and TV shows is that people want to watch them and are willing to either pay or watch commercials to get them. The millions and thousands would still be spent, even if there were not copyright. It's not that great of an incentive.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Positive development, but...

Except the professional artist 'class' existed long before copyrights. Very long before. Copyrights also cover public performances so there really was no 'physical barrier' to copying since a piece need not be performed by the artist that wrote it to be performed. This absurd notion you have that no one would spend any money on entertainment or culture without copyrights is just that: absurd. There's no other way to describe it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Positive development, but...

And yet you should not be able to stop others from copying anything if they done it with their own resources no matter how much it cost to develop it. That kind of action promotes the unfit to gain control of something and direct things in the wrong direction like any other monopoly ever granted.

The solution to that problem is to learn what others are looking for and give it to them so they seek out your product and not other alternatives.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Positive development, but...

I don't buy any of your arguments. Movieland did just fine before copyright affected them. The fact that they moved to the west coast to set up Hollywood to /avoid/ copyright is rather telling, in fact. Copyright and patents, these days, are only used to fuel greed, and nothing else. Period, end statement.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Positive development, but...

The act of producing an iPhone requires a huge amount of resources: work, planning, monetary investment, plastic, metal, glass, and so on. Unauthorized copying of the end product is possible (heck, its done), but is made more difficult by the fact that you have to produce a tangible good, so copying isn't a huge problem.

Here's the difference. Some factory in China can take the same pieces of metal, glass, and plastic, and make something that functions exactly like an iPhone. Then sell it for $100 less than an actual iPhone. All without doing the hours of planning, considerable monetary investment, et cetera.

It is perfectly legal, and Apple has zero right to stop them. In fact, the last couple of MP3 players I bought were cheap iPod rip-offs - which I bought at the local computer store.

If you try to do the same thing with something that is copyrighted, it would be unlawful.

Copyright is what allows people to continue to spend millions of dollars and thousands of man hours to make your favorite movies and TV shows.

As the kids say, [citation needed]. Copyright is not necessary to sell the fruits of your labor, and it's absolutely not necessary to sell the labor itself. On the contrary, most artists find that less copyright enforcement equals greater sales.

There is no question in my mind that some copyright protection is necessary. But it is not the copyright protection we have now. Scaling it back from its current levels unquestionably would benefit the public, and in the long run it will benefit artists and publishers as well.

In particular, non-commercial infringement should be absolutely decriminalized, and the penalties far weaker than current levels. (Fines that are the equivalent of a parking ticket seem about right to me.)

The idea that "advertising" by itself constitutes for-profit infringement is also really problematic. Most websites have ads nowadays, and most of that income isn't even enough to cover hosting costs, much less fund a "criminal enterprise." Furthermore, I would hesitate to call it "profit from infringement" unless the ad money is directly attributable to specific acts of infringement.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Positive development, but...

What is really at issue here is the distribution model. If the content industry would stop hoarding their content and make it accessible there would be no reason for anyone to distribute it to the people who are being blocked out, the people who don't want to wait etc.

Not only that, but the content creators are starting to realize they can avoid all the BS dealing with their labels by connecting with their fans directly and releasing the music themselves.

The WHOA IS ME THEY'RE STEALING shit is so old and tired. They are not victims of anyone but themselves. The marketplace drives the market, and you can't bully the world into staying still because you refuse to move. Criminalizing the entire world because you refuse to adapt and innovate is retarded. At some point this is their own fault and their problems are caused by the fact they refuse to serve their customers. Supply and Demand is at work here.. They refuse to supply it so others will. If they start supplying it there is no reason to steal it. Piracy decreases.

Simple economics taught in every high school across this country, but our elected officials and big content billionaires cannot figure this out? Fuck outta here.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Positive development, but...

When I was 12 years old going over to a friends house and listening to her new Run DMC tape, I was listening to it for as free then as I would be listening to anything streaming on the internet.

Did it stop me from purchasing a the physical tape? Not really. If I was going to I was going to anyway. If I wasn't going to I may have decided that I wanted to purchase. If I decided I didn't want to purchase then I didn't.

It's that damn simple. Saying people are stealing because they listen before they buy is retarded. Listening to something doesn't constitute a contract to purchase and it never has. Ever. Not even going as far back as 8 track tapes . It's one virtual living room, give people a way to pay for it so they can listen at their leisure without having to jump through hoops, risk viruses, have annoying pop up ads and browser take overs they'll pay for it just because it's convenient.

Yeah sales dropped off.. but so has the quality of content. The labels no longer make albums to be albums, they don't develop artists, they sign deals based on singles. You lower the quality of the content people hear it in their virtual neighbors decide it's not worth their money and keep it moving.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Positive development, but...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Positive development, but...

Quote:

You're right, the act of copying something for personal use is not theft. I'd contend that profiting from distributing something you don't own is, though. That's where the real problem is.

How do you define ownership of something that can't be owned, measure or seen?
Simple answer you don't, someone create arbitrary rules based on gut feelings and hope for the best that is no way to do things in the real world.

Also why give a extremely long time of a monopoly to anyone, it has to have a very good reason, it has to be exceptional and not just run of the mil stuff, this doesn't happen today, those exclusion laws where commoditized in the assumption that it would be good, but good for whom?
Certainly not the entirety of society or the economy for which exclusion rights actually reduce economic activity, encourages money hoarding and doesn't do much of anything else so, I am curious to know why people think those laws should even exist.

Copyright should end, whatever good it brings is nowhere near the harm it causes.

If copyright is theft, my advise to everyone is to steal more. Millions do it everyday even the people trying to call others thieves, even they can't escape their own rules and try to hide it or create exceptions.

If for nothing else IP laws should end because they are now threatening the foundations of democracy itself. Given powers to others that can be used to censor anybody is not something that should be taken lightly, that is the line that should never be crossed and it was, it is time to end the problem and the problem is copyright itself.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Positive development, but...

Where is the theft?

The theft of market share?

That is not a problem for law enforcement that is a problem for market forces, if you can't convince people why they should go to you instead of the other guy, you should be broking deals with that other guy to sell something.

Ubuntu is free anybody can copy it, modify it and even sell it even they want too, and there are people who do, does it stop others from buying from the original creator? Nope in fact it helps them because they serve the people who serve others.

The reason we have copyrights is because some douche 200 years ago wanted a monopoly and he got it, now is time to end that monopoly.

Re: Re: Re: Positive development, but...

Downloading is not Theft. It is Infringement.

Theft: Taking some physical object that isn't yours. This means the rightful owner does not have that object.

Infringement: Making a copy of something (meaning the original is still where it started out at) without paying for your use of those copy'd bits (either to listen/watch, or use in your own content (IE if I decided to slap a few Two Steps from Hell tracks into a movie I'm making without bothering to pay them for the privilege.) Still wrong, in that you're getting around the whole 'paying the person for services.' However you do not actively deny other people that same thing.

The problem here is the RIAA/MPAA want to equate one with the other instead of try doing something like parlay the oftentimes questionable rip/recorded quality of the downloads/youtube videos/whatever into sales of a Superior product (IE a DVD/BLU-Ray with Bonus Tracks, Behind the Scenes footage, consistent quality. Not having to deal with poor cam footage. Etc)

iTunes has shown that people are quite willing to pay for the same thing they could get for Free because Pay offers a better service.

Netflix has streaming services for all kinds of stuff at a per month flat rate (which reminds me of how radio stations pay a flat license fee for their content rather than a 'x per song play' model. You can view the content on any box you're logged into (Pretty sure it only lets you stay logged in to one device at a time.) Plus if you want a physical copy Go right ahead, just mail it back when you're done.

Ye Olden Services like WinMX, Napster, eMule, and the like have shown that there is a customer demand. Later legal services have shown that it's a viable business model (that doesn't involve selling time-slices of the zombie network you're creating by lacing the browsing software with malware... Kaazaa.)

I would honestly pay good money if the labels, studios, and the like would embrace these technologies rather than bombard us with 'you wouldn't be a baby eating pirate' ads in media we've already bought, or try co-opting the legal system to be their bully boys so they won't have to keep up with new distribution methods.

The player piano was called out as killing the industry.

So were records.

So was the radio.

So were movies.

So was BETAMAX/VHS.

Yet time and again when the new reality was accepted. 'The Industry' saw profits they couldn't have imagined beforehand. Sure there's casualties with every advance, but then again just because we have HIGH DEFINITION movies with multi million dollar special effects doesn't mean the stage play is dead, and radio has survived the past century quite well thanks for asking.

It isn't 'Adapt or Die'. It's 'Adapt to your new nich as the environment shifts.' Sure Tape isn't around anymore, and who knows. Maybe CDs will end up dying out, but there will always be a need for that physical object to house the bits in some theoretically permenent fashion (barring your little sister throwing the CD in the microwave.)

Work with your customers. Don't treat us as Criminals lest we cast you aside in favor of going to the artists themselves.

Re: Re: Positive development, but...

"Make no mistake", "plain and simple", those are the talking points most use when none of the evidence backs it up. "Short skirts are wrong, plain and simple", "make no mistake, home tapes are like the Boston strangler".

"Make no mistake": your research is wrong, and you are wrong.
"Plain and simple": because I say so.

Re: Re: Re: Positive development, but...

Just a clarification: sometimes this can be used for emphasis.

In this case, they're being used as a "counter" to all the evidence. Beware of anybody who says "piracy is theft, plain and simple" and then don't even bother to bring up a reason or try to debunk all the research indicating exactly the contrary.

Re: Re: Positive development, but...

This is exactly like "the horse and buggy industry coming to terms with the automobile." If SOPA and the DMCA were narrowly targeted at only stopping torts or crimes and not wide swaths of legal activity it might be like "the automobile industry having to come to terms with car thieves" but only as a very loose metaphor since physical property and property rights are nothing at all like material covered by copyright and copyrights.

Following up a ludicrous conflation with 'plain and simple' doesn't mean it's no longer a conflation. Infringement is infringement, not theft and infringement is not always a crime. Furthermore it's not a property crime because it doesn't involve taking of property of any kind. These kinds of absolutely baseless conflations that have no standing what-so-ever in common language or the law are what PW is talking about when they said 'there's some serious debunking that has to be brought to light.'

Re: Re: Positive development, but...

Yeah, I agree lets put 14 year old kids in jail for 5 years for downloading a 20 dollar copy of Finding Nemo. Lets kick in peoples doors based on IP addresses, and then arrest their printers. Damn fucking printers, don't they know infringement is illegal. Lets push unstable people to attempt suicide after they have been falsely accused of infringement. Lets push for the death penalty for these nasty infringers.

I was going to link to each and every one of those "lets..." but we all know them already.

Re: Re: Positive development, but...

No, there absolutely should be strong federal punishments for proven serious crimes that do provable harm. The content industries like to make claims of massive monetary and job losses, and base their demands for legal recourse based on those claims. Yet none of the independent, non-industry studies, even some from governments, can find any evidence that supports these outlandish claims. If you want to inflict strong federal punishments for crimes, there should be conclusive evidence and wide agreement of the actual effects of those crimes. The industries have failed miserably to prove that, and have instead succeeded in getting most of what they want due to massively lobbying dollars going to self-serving politicians who fit every definition of corrupt except the legal one.

Re: Re: Positive development, but...

There has been pressure on other countries to adopt more uniform content protection. However, such efforts are repeatedly mocked here. For example, the DOS uses diplomatic efforts to move in such a direction, but when this becomes known here it is lambasted as essentially comprising the beating up on other sovereign nations. When ACTA is proposed as a means of trying to establish international norms, it is ridiculed here as well.

It seems that there is nothing that can be done that will slake the thirst of the anti-rights crowd other than do nothing at all unless it is the elimination of Title 17.

Re: Re: Re: Positive development, but...

Re: Re: Positive development, but...

My first reaction was to say, "You're an idiot!", but I can see that you're not. Rather, you seem to me to be more one of those people who automatically say, "If it's 'against the law' (that's in quotes because even that distinction is not always clear) it must be wrong." You tend to see things in terms of black and white, right and wrong. You trust the government and the legal system as it is, because you, nor anyone you're close to, has ever been unjustly harmed by them.
(If I'm mistaken, I apologize...)

Piracy is not wrong, and there should certainly not be strong federal punishments for proven content piracy. If I watch my TV on the internet (on a "pirate" site) NO ONE IS HARMED! The film and television industries continue to make millions upon millions of dollars each year. No one is deprived of the "stolen" videos. I have even read of a study that showed that users of "pirated" content were also major purchasers of video content - whether blurays or movie tickets.

Those folks who make the shows and films I watch have already been paid, and paid handsomely, by the time I get to watch them on "pirated" TV. The artists - the writers and actors - have been paid. The directors and grips, costumers, and technicians, have all been paid. Even the "producers" have been paid. The real issue here is how much money is enough, and are these greedy "rights"-holders the only ones with any "rights" to the material? For me the answer is a resounding NO!

In our modern times film, and especially television, are part and parcel of our daily lives. The films we see and the shows we watch, entertain us and educate us - they reflect us. We watch and we see ourselves, our neighbors, our history, and our future -and maybe our vision is altered in some fashion we barely notice. Film and television is a modern form of literature, and as literature it deserves to be shared, uncensored and unhindered.

The Hollywood conglomerates want us to think of film and television as they do, as only commodities - but they are not. They want us to believe that they made their widgets (films and shows) freely, and offered them at a competitive price to make a profit, and that they deserve to make as much profit as possible from their widgets. They are willing to have YOU (or me) thrown into prison for the sake of this belief.

The truth is, these are not just commodities - they ARE modern literature - they are made for us; they are about us/reflect us; they are broadcast on our airwaves; they form a significant part of our cultural sense of ourselves;and we paid for them (already).

What we have here is a clash between private rights and public good. The media giants want to squeeze as much money out of us as they can for as long as they can, because it's "their product" and "their right" to do so. They say, "If you don't want our product, then don't buy it, and if you try to use our product when we don't control it we'll see you thrown into prison and ruin your life."

I would reply that TV and film are so ingrained into our culture now that unless you're a VERY insular person, it isn't really an option not to have a TV or watch films anymore. What will we talk about at the watercooler or in the breakroom? The question then becomes, not will we have it, but rather, how much are we going to allow them to gouge us for it, and for how long, and do we continue to allow someone else to determine what we watch and when, or do we take that power ourselves - without having to pay extra for it?

I gather there is a saying in film copy"right" circles that goes something like this, "How do you compete with free?" On the surface it sounds like a reasonable question with the requisite rhetorical answer, "You can't.", but I believe on closer examination the question's as self-serving as most of their other rhetoric.

We've all seen the (so-called) PSAs, the working-class grip, complaining he won't have a job because "the pirates" are stealing his livelyhood. I believe that most everyone, even most "pirates" WANT to pay these guys. They want to see the actors and writers and technicians and grips who make the films and shows they love make a living. What they don't want to do is go broke paying exorbitant cable fees or pay twenty dollars for a mediocre film on a bluray disk that cost twenty cents to make; they don't want to continue to shovel their extremely limited livelihoods into the pockets of multi-millionaires and billionaires who, if they think of them at all, do so only as either "consumers" or "pirates".

We saw it with the music "industry" (it's really about art and culture there, too). For years they had a strangle-hold on the means of distribution, and they charged as much as they absolutely could get away with. Young people have a sense of when they're being taken advantage of, and when the computer finally allowed them to break free of the "industry" monopoly on the price of music they took advantage of it. The music "industry" paid the price in sales for their greed in the past.

We're seeing the same thing now in the film and television "industries" (culture and art will out), and like the despot, the tighter they grip, the more they lose. The really unfortunate part is that people's lives are being ruined as the industry uses it's immense wealth and influence to further solidify their "rights" at the expense of the public's interest, pushing the government to criminalize and prosecute and imprison people who threaten their POTENTIAL (not actual profits - yet) to profit, when these people only really want to enjoy and share their cultural commonality with others.

Re: Re: Positive development, but...

"It is theft, plain and simple."

Theft requires scarcity; it requires the original owner be deprived of the object stolen; this is a core part of the definition of theft, the rightful owner has to be deprived. Eg. you're calling someone a car thief who copies your car but doesn't deprive you of it.

Suffice it to say that copyright infringement is not theft. It's more like "disrespecting a monopoly". It is stuff the government and content owners don't like. Perhaps it deserves to be punished.

Re: Positive development, but...

Absolutely, what needs to happen is that actual science, not rhetoric, be utilized in truly quantifying 'the problem'. Every now and then a logical, non-emotional examination of the facts of a situation dictates that there is nothing that needs really to be done.

Surprise

I was surprised to see the email this morning in my inbox but it was a happy surprise.
I had assumed that the fix would be in at the White House too.
It is my hope that everyone can take a step back and look at the possibilities and opportunities here.
The exaggeration of damages by the big players in the entertainment industry has often obscured exactly what the problem is and exactly the scope of it really is.
Hopefully a rational approach to stopping counterfeit goods, which can cause damage to health and well being can be found and a middle ground can be found.

Re:

Techdirt said: "When the Senate introduced PIPA early last year, it was seen as almost assured that it would pass in something close to its initial form. Now that seems impossible." It will only be impossible if don't let up on the pressure we are exerting.

There are still dangerous provisions being considered, particularly "search engine" censorship. Remember, a "search engine" is just about any site that indexes and organizes information. We have to stop that section too.

Response to: Kenneth Michaels on Jan 14th, 2012 @ 10:44am

Actually Google makes most of its money through its search engine. You can't just say, its just indexing and organizing information. It's way too big and powerful and its doing more then that. Listen I'm not saying what you've been hearing from pro SOPA supporters. All I'm saying is that search engines have the power to block certain information, just like they have an option to block mature content for kids. It's like a food recall.. all I'm saying is to take counterfeit and illegal sites out of its search engine results.

Re: Re: Response to: Kenneth Michaels on Jan 14th, 2012 @ 10:44am

Wow...this is like complete 180 degree flip by Victoria Espinel. Wasn't she completely in favor of SOPA and now all of a sudden she isn't? is it safe to say that Hillary got Obama to put her in her place? So much win here!

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Interesting... so you admit the giant recording industries have been asleep all this time? Maybe, if they have awoken, it's time they start noticing how reality works and try to adapt accordingly and begin making money instead of just closing their eyes and going back to sleep.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

There are other ways to be paid for your work. Nobody is trying to deny them from profiting off of their content. We just want them to do it in a way that is in line with technology and meets the demands of the market.

It's that simple. There are infinite ways for artists and big content to get paid for their work.. they just need to be open to them. They want the world to bend to them.. no way. The marketplace has been in charge for as long as there has commerce. This won't change because the major labels have successfully bought off Washington.

Hey, it is almost like a discussion now

I was pretty thrilled to see this statement. I've not been impressed by the actions or rhetoric of Victoria Espinel to date, but this seems like a positive step. One of the really important parts of the response is that the White House is encouraging me, and those like me, to not just try to stop things, but to work on what needs to be done. From the letter "Where do we go from here? Don’t limit your opinion to what’s the wrong thing to do, ask yourself what’s right."

What's right? What needs to be done?

1. Let's deal in facts, not speculation. If there is real and serious harm being done to American industry by overseas rogues, it should be quantified. This has to be the starting point of any serious discussion about the issue. Unless real numbers are used that are impartial and objective, there can never be anything like consensus on the issue.

2. Punishment should be proportional to the infraction. It is a reasonable idea to come up with ways to mitigate or reduce real harm, if it in fact exists. While we are at it, let's make sure that we're looking at harm on both sides of this debate. Allowing abuse of the legal system (ala Righthaven) or abuse of the DMCA or using an elephant gun to hunt mosquitos (ala Jamie Thomas) really needs to be addressed as part of the reform being sought.

The concept of theft is conflated with the idea of copyright infringement, to the detriment of everyone involved in the discussion. If Jamie Thomas (or Lamar Smith) happen to infringe on something that could be outright purchased for under a dollar, there should be no way that the remedy for that situation should cost more than a new car. Or a house. It should not be possible for the stakeholders in this discussion to ruin the lives of people in hopes of proving a point.

3. Put some incentives in place to be accurate. Bogus takedowns, speculative lawsuits and extortion by legal threats and intimidation should all have serious consequences. It is becoming increasingly obvious that DMCA abuse has become commonplace. Rightsholders believe they are entitled to pull stuff (such as the MegaUpload song) off of the web simply because they don't like it. There should be some significant consequences for bad faith action such as this that encourages responsible behavior on the part of those who are so quick to lecture the world about their behavior.

4. Transparency. It is inexcusable for government to engage in dealings without allowing the public to understand and participate in the process. There may have been a time when this was acceptable. That time is over. From ACTA, to SOPA/PIPA, to whatever goofy scheme the captains of industry decide is the next battleground against our freedom, the discussion MUST involve the people that will be impacted by it from the very beginning.

Re: Hey, it is almost like a discussion now

I'd agree with most of your points, but the idea that copyright infringement and theft are unfairly conflated is bogus.

First, the two are not really being conflated. The websites that distribute copyrighted content without the rights are infringing on copyright, if they profit from the distribution of that content, then they owe the rights holders money. If they don't pay, then the content is stolen. People who knowingly consume content from these sources are trafficking in stolen goods.

Content, regardless of quality, is a product. Its producers invest some amount of time, money, and work into creating it with the reasonable expectation that they can profit from its sale either in money or in a less tangible way. When a person pirates content, they are taking a product without paying its asking price. That is theft. Theft is harmful.

Just because something is easy to steal doesn't mean that stealing it is less of a crime. I'd agree that the process of "making an example" of end users through wildly disproportionate punishments needs to be revised (it's bad PR and bad policy). That said, if you reduce the liability for stealing something to its purchase price, there is no incentive (save a moral one) to buy rather than steal. All the incentive is to steal it and cross your fingers, then shrug and pay what you would have had to pay anyway if you get caught.

Re: Re: Re: Hey, it is almost like a discussion now

The problem with that argument is that, in the case of a movie, book, or song, the product and the idea are the same thing. We've chosen as a society, through copyright, to protect new ideas as "intellectual property." This means that the originator of a work is also its owner and owns the exclusive right to sell, or profit from distribution of, that idea. That right is their property.

When you make a copy of something for personal use, its hard to say you've infringed on that right. That falls under "fair use." However if you personally collect revenue for making and distributing copies of an idea that you don't own, you have in effect, taken that idea from its owner and used it as if it were your own.

The entire point of copyright law is that the act of copying without a "copyright" is tantamount to theft because you are depriving someone else of the exclusive tangible and intangible benefits associated with owning their intellectual property.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey, it is almost like a discussion now

"The entire point of copyright law is that the act of copying without a "copyright" is tantamount to theft because you are depriving someone else of the exclusive tangible and intangible benefits associated with owning their intellectual property."

Held over from the days when books had to be reprinted by hand. The times, they are a changin'.

Don't release digital content. Or just keep your ideas to yourself.

Keep the music live. Can't take that from someone.

Keep movies in theaters. Then there is no way to copy the disc.

But they won't do that. They want it all. The creators rights and everyones money.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey, it is almost like a discussion now

The MAFIAA can keep it.

There will be plenty of others willing to share. I know of two groups personally that I can practically throw a rock to them from my house who provide excellent music on youtube. They are young so don't have much yet, but give them time. The one group has cut their own album already.

It is a job. A passion. They are making some sacrifices now just like a student going to college/university must.

This is what the MAFIAA fears. That they are out of the picture and no longer in control.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey, it is almost like a discussion now

I got the next couple of lines from a comment somewhere yesterday, can't remember where, and its not an exact quote, as I can't remember the exact words used but it goes more or less like
"In the pre-digital world, copyright law was effective at stopping infringement because the activity of using data and the activity of copying data were two distinct activities. You read a book, but didn't copy it, per se.
The digital world, by its very nature, can only use data by copying it, whether its transferring a movie file by temporarily copying it from the hard drive/optical disc into RAM or downloading a file from a web server. No matter how hard copyright maximists try, they cannot prevent what they call unlawful copying, because computers, by their very nature, can only copy data. You can slow it down or make it more difficult to make an unlawful copy, but at the price of destroying what a computer is, at the cost of destroying one of the most useful tools to have ever been invented".

To tell the truth, the comment was really just a couple of lines, but I felt like I had to take what was written before, remix it and put my own spin on it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey, it is almost like a discussion now

Video cameras and recorders still exist - and even with pat downs at the entrances of movie theaters or music halls, someone is eventually going to get through and turn the live performance into a digital content.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey, it is almost like a discussion now

All I am saying is if they do not wish to share, add to culture, then keep it to themselves. Or they can release it and be happy if they make anything. No reason they can't encourage payment. Just don't hold a gun to my head demanding, that is asking for retaliation. What is so new and creative about Halloween XLIII? Or Rocky 27?

I'd rather they kept it to themselves rather than eroding my rights. We will survive without them. I am living proof.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey, it is almost like a discussion now

I just want to see Disney jailing all those hard 12 years old criminals pointing their cellphone cameras at the screen.

Heck people don't even need to get the whole movie, one piece at a time and everybody can reconstruct an entire video with sound and with new tools appearing that can enhance not only image but audio the end result could be equal or better than the original.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey, it is almost like a discussion now

However if you personally collect revenue for making and distributing copies of an idea that you don't own, you have in effect, taken that idea from its owner and used it as if it were your own.

You have, "in effect, taken that idea from its owner and used as if it were your own" much the same if you only used something for personal use, not least of which becase once you are in possession of any idea, it has just as much become your own as it was the musicians or writers. It is the fundamental principle that you appear unable to distinguish between, that an idea shared does nothing to limit the utility of your copy, that an idea shared does nothing to limit your ability make use of the idea.

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.

Theft leaves me without something, something that may take further time and money to get back or recreate. Copying leaves me no worse off than I was yesterday, and comes at the expense of the person doing the copying. The only issue is that this act of copying may lead me to be able to compete with you with the same or similar good you are trying to sell, but this in turn assumes that a buyer only cares about price, a one dimensional, somewhat insulting view of the consumer that fails to account for such values like authenticity that also come into consideration.

By way of contrast abstract disembodied ideas have no value. Borges makes this point clear in his short story The Library of Babel. "When it was proclaimed that the Library contained all books, the first impression was one of extravagant happiness." But of course it is the embodied copies of ideas that have economic value, not their abstract existence, so "As was natural, this inordinate hope was followed by an excessive depression. The certitude that some shelf in some hexagon held precious books and that these precious books were inaccessible, seemed almost intolerable." The law of gravity as an abstract idea has no value because it is inaccessible. It is the concrete embodiment that is accessible and so has value. So my working knowledge of the law of gravity or the law of gravity as explained in a physics textbook has economic value, while the abstract idea has no value.

Once we recognize that the relevant economic entities are copies of ideas, our perspective on "intellectual property" changes. When you convey your idea to me, it is an act of production - a new good - my copy of your idea - is created. Once you have conveyed your idea to me, I can use this idea without interfering with your use of you original copy of your idea. Confusing abstract with embodied ideas, some economists and lawyers would say that this means that ideas are "nonrivalrous" or a "public good." But, as we have seen, this is not true of embodied ideas, which are the only ones to have economic value. Your copy of your idea and my copy of your idea are distinct economic entities. They are not public goods.

To put this in perspective, it is true that my drinking from my cup of coffee does not affect your use of your cup of coffee. No one would go on to suggest from this fact that coffee is "nonrivalrous" or a "public good" and that special laws and subsidies are needed in the coffee market. It is true that there is legal protection for cups of coffee - if you drink my cup of coffee without my permission, this would be an act of theft, and you would be subject to various civil and criminal penalties. Economists regard these "property rights" in the manner suggested by Eugene Volokh as securing the fruits of labor, and providing incentive to care for property. But notice that less legal protection is needed for your copy of your idea than is needed for your cup of coffee - while it may be relatively easy for me to steal your cup of coffee by threat or when you are not looking, it is fairly difficult for me to learn your idea without your active assistance. Indeed, it would seem that the legal protection needed would be no more than the legal right not to be subject of physical torture or coercion - a right that we enjoy regardless of the state of copyright and patent law. Be this as it may, there is no serious challenge to intellectual property in the sense of your right to determine to whom, under what circumstances and at what price you will transfer copies of your idea.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey, it is almost like a discussion now

In that case, fair use is just as much an act of theft, as fair use leaves you without control of your "property" for many purposes. Control over any copyright to the point that it can be legitimately called property in the same way as property over a house does not and has never existed.

Your "property" exists in the certain combination of words of your choosing. In which case, providing your 'for sale' work for free is again just as much an act of theft if I bought a copy of the book and gave it way under your logic. After all, sharing your "property" (your particular combination of words to express a thought) is a loss of control of that property regardless of whether I share a legitimately bought book or an unauthorised PDF file.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey, it is almost like a discussion now

Enough with the idea that "Intellectual Property" is actual property. It's not. Just like supporting the Patriot Act doesn't really make you a patriot, no matter how much the politicians would want you to believe that.

There have been variations of creative works since the beginning of time. You can't make a variation of a real property. Besides, copyright was put there with the ultimate goal to enrich the culture of the society, and that means allowing other people to use original works after a while. RIAA and MPAA don't want that that to happen - ever - which is why they keep pushing for 20 year extensions. The idea that those help the little guy is ridiculous. It only helps the corporations who own the copyright and at best the big stars.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey, it is almost like a discussion now

The problem with that argument is that you're conflating copyrights themselves with the expressions that they cover. Copyrights themselves are a kind of property but the expressions they cover are not therefor copyrights are not property rights. Similarly I can buy or sell debt just like I can buy or sell land but that doesn't make debt itself a property right because that makes no sense.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey, it is almost like a discussion now

It helps to understand that the CTEA was not arbitrarily passed in the US. In fact, it was passed in response to certain actions in Europe where countries were according longer terms to domestic authors than non-domestic authors.

Was it wise to extend copyright terms even longer? This can be debated until the cows come home without any final agreement. But whether wise or not, the act was passed in response to european initiatives, and not US initiatives, so that US authors would receive the same treatment as other rights holders in european countries.

If people really want to rag on what copyright in the US currently comprises, I suggest they consider the propriety of the US pursuing a course to try and harmonize its laws with those of europe. As much as people may want to cast aspersions at Congress and rights holders in general, at least they should try to keep in the back of their minds that Congress has made a serious attempt to ameliorate some of the clear overreaching embodies in europe.

I do not know the answer because I have not researched it. However, does europe have a counterpart to Section 512 of the DMCA? What about the important concept of fair use? What about the first sale doctrine? What about our refusal to accord rights to databases, enact moral rights (a creation credited to France), etc.? Rail if you must, but at least Congress has not followed europe blindly. For this it should deserve some measure of credit.

With US changes to european excesses, the US is attempting to secure agreement that such changes should be incorporated into the effort to achieve international harmonization. ACTA may be a dirty word to some, but it is not the vile villan so many make it out to be...a naked exertion of US power over those poor other countries who have implemented law without the limitations associated with US law.

Frankly, I tend to believe that the US' 1909 act, with its historical insistence on formalities was a more reasonable approach. Unfortunately, europe expressed disdain for such an approach, leaving the US to play catch-up to avoid harming the interests of US authors outside the US.

If you want to point fingers, the ones you should be pointing at are those on the other side of the Atlantic.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey, it is almost like a discussion now

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey, it is almost like a discussion now

ACTA is a dirty acronym (it's not a word) because it was a secretive process negotiated behind closed doors. It was duplicitous in its drafting and now every trick in the book will be used to ram it through the various legislatures that need to sign off on it. Well, not ours of course, because the ultimate slimy trick is to just bypass the legislature entirely. It's an international treaty (oh, except not in the U.S. it's not).

I honestly could not care less about harmonization with Europe as justification for bad law. Since when do we take our orders from them? Saying that "they made us do it" rings a bit hollow, especially given the current state of play on who is driving what in the global war on common sense that is the "IP harmonization" effort.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey, it is almost like a discussion now

The problem with that argument is that you can't make people feel really really bad about stealing something if they aren't actually stealing, but copying. So we conflate theft and infringement to be able to make such emotionally charged argument and then deny all research and studies to the contrary and label them "bogus".

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey, it is almost like a discussion now

"Tell that to all the vapid, quasi-soulless rehashes that are being released this year: two variants of Snow White, another vampire fanwank and another Transformers film.

99% of the movie content is a repost of a rehash of a repost."

This is I believe a common misconception. While I am no fan of all the over the top action and remakes that are pumped out of Hollywood these days to say that terrible, over-produced, over hyped and over promoted content is 99% of what Hollywood is producing these days is not only inaccurate it is an unjust judgment that demands defense.

While the big money makers are indeed the big films that are so often terrible remakes and/or the never ending sequel cookie cutter approach, the motion picture industry (and visual media in general) has expanded so much in the last 20 years that now those big "block busters" are a very small percentage of all the media and movies that are being produced.

Simply put there are a hell of a lot more movies and shows being made every year than there was 20 years ago and even 20 years ago (and since the inception of the industry really) there were crappy movies being made with the intent of appealing to the masses and getting that big paycheck.

So while much of the great media being produced now may not be promoted that does not mean it is not being made and from what I can see more good movies are being made now than back in the "golden age" of cinema simply because they can be produced for less money than they could in the "good old days"

Used to be that most of television was crap. Now shows like Breaking Bad, Shameless, etc... are being made and I for one am thankful for it.

So while I do not support the MPAA, RIAA et al I do respect much of the hard work being done in the media industry and beyond respect, frankly I enjoy it was well.

Re: Re: Re: Hey, it is almost like a discussion now

Re: Re: Hey, it is almost like a discussion now

And US judges have said before that copying is NOT theft. As we've said over and over again, THEFT is when you remove a good from its lawfully designated place - a product on a store shelf, the car from the driveway, a valued possession from the home.
"That is theft. Theft is harmful". That is you closing your mind to the possibility that copyright infringement can have POSITIVE benefits as well. There have been dozens of games that I've infringed on and later gone on to buy - without the infringing, I would never have purchased them. Should I still be punished, even though I bought the game/movie? What about if I bought first, then downloaded later? Have I harmed the game developer, the movie producer? Since any person with common sense can see that I haven't...then why should I be punished, if there has been no harm?
Copyright infringement and theft are being conflated. Your comment up above just proves that.

Re: Re: Hey, it is almost like a discussion now

It's sad that it needs to be pointed out to anyone that this is a complete non-sequitor. It does not follow that they owe the rights holders money and it does not follow that if they do owe them money and don't pay it that the content is stolen. Furthermore it's absolutely absurd that knowingly consuming content from infringing sources is being conflated with 'trafficking in stolen goods.' Am I trafficking in stolen goods if I go to a concert of a cover band that doesn't have a public performance license for all of their music? Obviously not. Have I committed any kind of crime or tort by attending even if I know the band doesn't have said rights? Again, the answer is no.

Re: Re: Hey, it is almost like a discussion now

It's not 'easy' to infringe on copyright. It's effortless. It's the very easiest thing to do, of all the options available.

The internet had made 'Content' of any sort drastically less valuable because everyone is producing content of some sort, and copying is effortless.

Copying is currently a crime, but the number of people who don't think it should be suggests to me that in another twenty or thirty years it might not be. A public that copyright is no longer useful can rewrite or revoke it.

I think that's a pretty good idea. No idea what that world would look like, but there are a few industries without copyright that we can look to. Fashion and Recipes are the two that some to mind. No lack of content there.

Re:

Unfortunately I think you're right about this. Obama's campaign strategy for re-election seems to be going on full confrontation course with congress. SOPA is just a small part of this. It's a sound strategy of course, but as far as SOPA is concerned it's unfortunately just a cynical ploy.

Re:

I'm willing to give him a chance to drop Biden from the ticket before I pass judgement. If he doesn't, well, I'm going to have to side with you. Even if he was able to reign in Biden in a second term the risk would not be worth voting for him in my opinion.

Re:

This may not be a bad thing at all. If Reid brings it to a vote "as is" on the 24th, it might get killed right then. If it does pass, the house may kill it. If it makes it to Obama, he might kill it. There's a growing pattern here.

Keep turning up the heat!!!!

Maybe they might see through the bri...err... campaign contributions and kill the bill before it can do any real harm. The courts not withstanding.

I find it ironic that Espinel is listed as a co-author of this article, as she has clearly voiced her opinion on domain seizures, of which she is definitely supportive of. I feel like this definitely came down from higher command and is not a universal opinion in the WH.

I find it ironic that Espinel is listed as a co-author of this article, as she has clearly voiced her opinion on domain seizures, of which she is definitely supportive of. I feel like this definitely came down from higher command and is not a universal opinion in the WH.

For everyone who has posted ideas, great effort most of them I believe to be steps in the right direction. Now that you've come up with the ideas, take them to the people that write the legislation....your senators and representatives. Get those ideas in their hands and continue to beat them about the head and neck with why the stuff already being pushed is total bullshit.

[O]verreaching copyright claims have resulted in the removal of non-infringing campaign videos from YouTube, thus silencing political speech. Numerous times during the course of the campaign, our advertisements or web videos have been the subject of DMCA takedown notices regarding uses that are clearly privileged under the fair use doctrine. The uses at issue have been the inclusion of fewer than ten seconds of footage from news broadcasts in campaign ads or videos, as a basis for commentary on the issues presented in the news reports, or on the reports themselves. These are paradigmatic examples of fair use...

Political speech is supposed to get the highest protection.

When the DMCA is used to censor political campaign speech, less than a month before the election, then the DMCA needs drastic surgery.

Requested Answer

I find it interesting that after reading every reply to this news article that not a single poster took up the Whitehouse's challenge to say how the overseas piracy problem can be resolved.

I can't say I blame them when file-sharing seems unstoppable. Even if they could take down every BT website this helps little when the BT file-sharing network is a separate entity. It is also possible to search the BT network itself for what you need without having announcement sites.

So attacking BT sites seems like a red herring. The best you can achieve there is to make BT sites lawful and then to regulate them under the law to keep their lawful status.

The only real solution is to promote lawful services when people prefer the lawful option if it provides a good enough service. In that regard I was happy to see NetFlix reach the UK at 6 GBP a month (for now).

I can say one thing for certain and that is no censorship plan in any form will help them. There will always be strong opposition and work arounds.

So I guess my answer is if you can't beat your enemy then maybe it is time to be friends with them instead.

Re: Requested Answer

The overseas piracy problem can be resolved by accepting the fact that the US and the UK are no longer so far removed from each other that you can get away with different release dates. When you release a movie or an album try making it available at the same time. When you stream a TV show in the internet don't block it to markets outside of the US.

The world wide web is world wide.. stop making stupid business decisions and make the content available world wide.. and piracy will decrease in foreign sites.

I really do not get why this is so difficult, it's like this shit is rocket science to these people, but common sense to your everyday average high school drop out.

Re: Requested Answer

... not a single poster took up the Whitehouse's challenge to say how the overseas piracy problem can be resolved.

What—are my posts invisible?

I really was making serious suggestions, at least on where to start. The overwhelming problem, as I see it, is that copyright has lost public support. There is no copyright deal between authors and the public.

All the suggestions I posted were concrete ways to start winning back public support.

Re: Re: Requested Answer

Copyright does indeed have a vast array of problems and lack much public support but this does not directly address how to shut down overseas piracy sites.

The only time I have ever felt that piracy was at risk was when NetFlix was providing a successful good service. Once the vast majority of people are legal then piracy could be crushed like a tiny bug with few noticing or caring.

Then NetFlix did a large price increase then I remembered commercial services always aim for maximum profit. That leaves a large percentage who will always consider it too expensive and seek other options including piracy.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Requested Answer

It would be my belief that even if the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act was repealed that this would help the overseas piracy problem none. People would still say that life plus 50 years was much too long and pirate on.

Some people would even not be happy until Copyright is completely abolished which is very unlikely to happen.

So this is not an answer to the Whitehouse's question. It may indeed move people away from piracy but that won't be many people.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Requested Answer

It may indeed move people away from piracy but that won't be many people.

Well, you might be right. As long as there are RIAA lobbyist judges on the federal bench, deciding cases ‘in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned’ then there's not going to be a whole lot of respect for copyright law.

That is to say the legislation was so overboard that when they come back to the table and "compromise" violating our rights and censoring our net will seem like they have done us a favor.

End of the day I am just pessimistic enough to see that people that propose things like SOPA never quit, they cannot. They must control and eventually they always win because they have no moral compass and no sense of decency and because they are always right and the ends always justify the means.

SOPA/PIPA news

So my local news stations aired article on SOPA/PIPA all it took was calling the station talking to the producers and sending email outlining the issues with links to corroborating articles. Mike I hope you dont mind I used alot of your articles to make my arguments. Please everyone do the same maybe we can get even more news coverage from other local news stations.

Hard to believe

I am pretty happy about the fact that the White house seems to be against sopa/pipa...but horrified that they're still clinging to the "but...but...but...we NEEEEED to do SOOOOOMETHING!!!" Philosophy.

They're still trying to push copyright farther. They aren't saying "Hey, let's take a look at copyright thing as a whole and see if it still makes sense," they're saying, "Wah, wah, stealing american creativity and jobs, need more copyright laws/enforcement."

Just because copying a movie is easier than copying an iphone for my own personal use doesn't mean it should be illegal. If I make a copy of a physical item for my own personal use it is perfectly legal.

Don’t limit your opinion to what’s the wrong thing to do, ask yourself what’s right.
[...]
Washington needs to hear your best ideas about how to clamp down on rogue websites and other criminals who make money off the creative efforts of American artists and rights holders.

How to eliminate 99% of piracy:
1. Provide better service than the pirates.
2. Watch profits go up.
3. Admit that Gabe Newell was right.

If I was running the MPAA and/or RIAA, I'd have something like Steam made for movies and/or music. Make stuff easy to find and buy, stream to any device you own at no additional cost, have sales all the time, weekend demos, etc.

Overhaul copyright laws. Leave them to 15-20 years only - just like it was when they were created. Also allow everyone to remix any work, non-commercially. But if the work is hardly the same as the original, you should be able to use commercially, too, like if you only use different segments from different works. Why not? People already do it all the time on Youtube. That should not be illegal, and if you worked hard on it, you should be able to make money from it.

But the most important part, leave copyright to 15-20 years. The LIFE+70 years they get now is BEYOND RIDICULOUS.

Let's quote the rest of the statement, shall we? All the way to the end:

"So, rather than just look at how legislation can be stopped, ask yourself: Where do we go from here? Don’t limit your opinion to what’s the wrong thing to do, ask yourself what’s right. Already, many members of Congress are asking for public input around the issue. We are paying close attention to those opportunities, as well as to public input to the Administration. The organizer of this petition and a random sample of the signers will be invited to a conference call to discuss this issue further with Administration officials and soon after that, we will host an online event to get more input and answer your questions. Details on that will follow in the coming days.

Washington needs to hear your best ideas about how to clamp down on rogue websites and other criminals who make money off the creative efforts of American artists and rights holders. We should all be committed to working with all interested constituencies to develop new legal tools to protect global intellectual property rights without jeopardizing the openness of the Internet. Our hope is that you will bring enthusiasm and know-how to this important challenge.

Moving forward, we will continue to work with Congress on a bipartisan basis on legislation that provides new tools needed in the global fight against piracy and counterfeiting, while vigorously defending an open Internet based on the values of free expression, privacy, security and innovation. Again, thank you for taking the time to participate in this important process. We hope you’ll continue to be part of it."

Not sure if this is good news or not, there are still some very nasty aspects of SOPA/PIPA that they have failed to state they'll even think about reviewing, such as the part which could shut down future wikileaks-type sites and send anyone who looks for them or views them to the big house. But at least it's a start, and they have to start somewhere.

I agree piracy should be fought, like any other form of criminal activity. The best way to do this is for the business owners to revise their models to take into account the internet and the opportunities it presents. Look at Netflix and iTunes for examples. Providing a better service than the pirates, and providing content consumers feel is worth paying for will cost the pirates most of their business. Then legislate against the handful of people who pirate the content no matter what and those who do the actual pirating. However, if that legislation has negative effect on so much as ONE person who is not breaking the law, then the legislation has to go back to the drawing board.

If the white house is really against PIPA, why is Leahy's chief of staff Ed Pagano leaving to join the White House, to be Obama's liaison to the Senate, as just reported by Vermont Public Radio? Pagano has been Leahy's chief of staff since 2005. Prior to that he had worked for Leahy on the Judiciary Committee.

The good news is that maybe there's a major shake up here in Vermont and maybe we're getting through to Leahy that eating Gilfeather turnips isn't morally wrong. The bad news is that Pagano is undoubtedly on the wrong side of SOPA/PIPA.

For those who don't know, the developer of the Gilfeather turnip (popular in Vermont and developed here) cut the tops and bottoms of them before selling them so no one else could grow them. Sounds like digital rights management (DRM) for the 19th century to me.

The thing is there is nothing to protect if they really wanted to protect anything they would have let the industry deal with itself the incumbents would go down and new ones would be born, they don't like destructive creation, well too bad, reality is all based on it, you can't escape that, the Sun will explode someday and a new one will be born elsewhere, the earth will end someday, people die, inventions are forgotten to be rediscovered latter again.

To protect some industry at the expense of democracy doesn't seem like a good deal for me at all.

Let's not forget that Obama's word is worth about as much as a $3 bill.

This is the guy who was against retro-active immunity for the telcom companies while running, and then upheld it once in office. This is the guy who claimed he wanted a more open government, but more Freedom of Information requests have been denied under his presidency than any other. This is the guy who promised to veto the NDAA, and then happily signed it.

He lies like almost every other politician, saying whatever the people want to hear and then doing whatever he pleases.

I would feel a little better if they spoke out against this when they first got wind of the bill. Nothing like waiting until you know that there are a significant number of people mad about something before you speak out.

I live in Seattle and live music is not played in any coffee shops, small bars etc. because of the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension act. If a coffee shop advertises live music they immediately receive a letter from local lawyers indicating that a fee must be paid to BMI for having live music.

THIS IS THE CASE EVEN WHEN A VENUE IS ONLY HOSTING NON BMI TALENT.

It's a disaster for local singer songwriters that venues are being intimidated this way, thus the music scene is dead here. We don't know how to fight this. Will repealing Sopa/pipa solve this problem? Does anyone know of a petition to repeal the Sonny Bono Act

I live in Seattle and live music is not played in any coffee shops, small bars etc. because of the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension act. If a coffee shop advertises live music they immediately receive a letter from local lawyers indicating that a fee must be paid to BMI for having live music.

THIS IS THE CASE EVEN WHEN A VENUE IS ONLY HOSTING NON BMI TALENT.

It's a disaster for local singer songwriters that venues are being intimidated this way, thus the music scene is dead here. We don't know how to fight this. Will repealing Sopa/pipa solve this problem? Does anyone know of a petition to repeal the Sonny Bono Act?